Health Care Complaints Commission v Buys [2020] NSWCATOD 44

Health Care Complaints Commission v Buys [2020] NSWCATOD 44

The Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that all particulars of Complaint One were proven. The respondent's conduct included failing to securely store Schedule 8 drugs, failing to keep a drug register, prescribing oxycodone and other regulated drugs in excessive quantities and without adequate clinical indication, assessment, monitoring or referral, prescribing drugs in his own name and practice names outside acceptable dental standards, and failing to keep adequate clinical records. Accepting Dr Sridhar's expert evidence, the Tribunal found this conduct significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a dentist of equivalent training and experience. Considered in the aggregate, the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Occupational Division Disciplinary Proceedings Concerning a Dental Practitioner / Principal Judgment on Whether the Respondent Was Guilty of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct or Professional Misconduct; Protective Orders Deferred to Stage 2 Hearing
Outcome
Professional misconduct found; proceedings stood over for a stage 2 hearing to determine protective orders.
Legal Topics
['professional Misconduct' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'prescription of Drugs of Addiction' 'schedule 8 Drugs' 'schedule 4 and Schedule 4 D Drugs' 'drug Storage and Drug Registers' 'clinical Recordkeeping' 'protective Orders']
['health Practitioner Regulation' 'professional Discipline' 'dental Practice'] ['professional Misconduct' 'unsatisfactory Professional Conduct' 'prescription of Drugs of Addiction' 'schedule 8 Drugs' 'schedule 4 and Schedule 4 D Drugs' 'drug Storage and Drug Registers' 'clinical Recordkeeping' 'protective Orders']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Occupational Division Disciplinary Proceedings Concerning a Dental Practitioner / Principal Judgment on Whether the Respondent Was Guilty of Unsatisfactory Professional Conduct or Professional Misconduct; Protective Orders Deferred to Stage 2 Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's prescribing, handling, storage and recordkeeping for drugs of addiction and other regulated drugs constituted unsatisfactory professional conduct under section 139B of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW)." "Whether the respondent's conduct, individually or cumulatively, was sufficiently serious to constitute professional misconduct under section 139E of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW)." 'Whether the respondent failed to comply with requirements under the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008 (NSW) relating to secure storage of drugs of addiction and keeping drug registers.' 'Whether the respondent prescribed oxycodone and other regulated drugs without sufficient clinical indication, assessment, monitoring, referral, or adequate clinical records.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that all particulars of Complaint One were proven. The respondent's conduct included failing to securely store Schedule 8 drugs, failing to keep a drug register, prescribing oxycodone and other regulated drugs in excessive quantities and without adequate clinical indication, assessment, monitoring or referral, prescribing drugs in his own name and practice names outside acceptable dental standards, and failing to keep adequate clinical records. Accepting Dr Sridhar's expert evidence, the Tribunal found this conduct significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a dentist of equivalent training and experience. Considered in the aggregate, the...

Court Disposition

Professional misconduct found; proceedings stood over for a stage 2 hearing to determine protective orders.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is to inform the respondent within 7 days what protective orders and other orders that it then currently seeks to be made against the respondent.' 'The respondent is to file and serve within one month of receipt of that information the evidence and submissions upon which he seeks to rely for the...